The UFO/UAP disclosure thread

[Professor Emeritus]

The truth is out there? Investigating mystery triangle UFO spotted above U.S. marine base

We talked about that in the other thread - there was a documented military exercise going on that night and they dropped flares that fall in the exact same pattern as the lights on the screen. You can see without a doubt that the spacing is exactly the same but mirrored (since the military tape was on the opposite side of the flares) and much clearer since the military was using night vision.

 

[FlyBoy718]

We talked about that in the other thread - there was a documented military exercise going on that night and they dropped flares that fall in the exact same pattern as the lights on the screen. You can see without a doubt that the spacing is exactly the same but mirrored (since the military tape was on the opposite side of the flares) and much clearer since the military was using night vision.

Those videos don't take into account the eyewitness accounts of 50+ Marines who confirmed seeing a physical craft in the air. Furthermore, those Marines who took photos of the craft ruled out flares. In fact, the video posted acknowledges the military exercise you brought up while also taking into account the vast range the military base occupies.

 

[Ciggavelli]

So the doctor who claims that he removes alien implants from people who have been abducted by aliens, just happened to be on the other side of the world hanging out with this other guy when a spaceship shows up, and this spaceship has an observation deck where the aliens walk out and look around? It's crazy how some people seem to get all the alien luck over and over (but still can't get a damn picture of any clarity even with all their extra chances).

Besides the fact that the entire thing is distorted as fukk like every UFO vid, the consensus I've see is that it's an observation deck on a boat or something similar that's being distorted through a funny lens or other obscuring effect. But the imagery is so bad that it's a Rorshach test to see whatever you want to see, if you go in thinking it's an alien spacecraft with "grays" walking around, then that's what you'll see.

It's been analyzed by others too. It's not that surprising that this doctor was there. He seeks out ufos/aliens, so when he heard about strange occurrences he went to see it himself. It's like saying it's strange a physicist always sees strange particles when he's around the LHC, or it's strange an archeologist always finds important artifacts, or it's strange a paleontologist always seems to find dinosaur bones. You get what I'm saying?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Those videos don't take into account the eyewitness accounts of 50+ Marines who confirmed seeing a physical craft in the air. Furthermore, those Marines who took photos of the craft ruled out flares. In fact, the video posted acknowledges the military exercise you brought up while also taking into account the vast range the military base occupies.

Breh, you can literally see that the flares in the training footage and the flares in the "UFO video" are the exact same shyt. They're in the EXACT same configuration - one down lowest to the side, the next two much higher and closest together, the fourth highest and fairly close to the third, and the last lower but not as low as the first. Literally the EXACT same configuration, just mirrored.

Not to mention that all of it makes perfect sense for flares, but no sense at all for an alien craft. Why would it have five lights at all? Why would those lights be positioned so asymmetrically? Why would it hang in almost the same place for so long, but steadily falling? Why was it completely silent? Why was it hanging out in easy view of a major military exercise of no particular importance? Why hasn't a single one of the hundreds and hundreds of people involved in the actual exercise reported anything strange, just these random uninvolved people hanging off to the side? And why would the lights on the craft perfectly match the configuration of the flares dropped on that same night?

All of those questions have perfect, obvious answers if they are just falling flares. They have silly, strained explanations if its an alien craft. Occum's Razor is in effect.


In terms of these "50+ marine eyewitnesses", it's what the UFO people claim, but what is your documentation? Do you have the names of any of them, or just the claims that they were marines? How do you know they weren't just fukking around, or weren't newbies who had never seen dropping flares in a military exercise and didn't know how to interpret them any better than anyone else. Why do you assume their eyes can make out a craft that can't be seen at all on film, even when the photos are enhanced? How do you know their eyes weren't just playing tricks on them and imagining a solid structure around the symmetrical lights, as our eyes often do when they see patterns?


This is one of the easiest ones, breh. We don't need guesswork, we have clear video documentation of the exact incident that produced the sighting, whereas the "evidence" for being a UFO is flimsy as heck. And for anyone who is looking at it objectively, I hope it goes a long way towards demonstrating my repeat refrain that eyewitness account are unreliable as all get out.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

It's been analyzed by others too. It's not that surprising that this doctor was there. He seeks out ufos/aliens, so when he heard about strange occurrences he went to see it himself. It's like saying it's strange a physicist always sees strange particles when he's around the LHC, or it's strange an archeologist always finds important artifacts, or it's strange a paleontologist always seems to find dinosaur bones. You get what I'm saying?

You're saying that a massive publicity seeker who "seeks out aliens" manages to visit this guy's house at the exact time that aliens just showed up for no reason (because aliens are predictable, right?).....but can't prep well enough to get a decent photo? They only brought one camera for such a groundbreaking event, they can't even get photos from two different sources? And these aliens are showing up regularly in what appears to be a very well-populated area with tons of tourism, but only this one guy and his guests saw it?

I mean come on now, if this shyt had been a predictable event that he specifically went there to witness and prepared for, then at LEAST they would have multiple high-powered cameras, other forms of scanning equipment, photos from different angles, etc. He'd have more than one other person there. His guest lives right there next to the water, so he'd have a friend with a boat to go out and take a closer look. There's a ton he could have done. Instead, we have these terribly blurred photos of shapes moving around on an observation deck of a stationary craft.....that looks just like the observation balcony of any regular boat.

I'm still really, really questioning the idea that these aerial alien craft that are so amazingly hard to witness with any clarity are going to have regular physical viewing platforms for the occupants to just walk out in the open and casually catch some fresh air right in front of a major tourist area full of people.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

It's been analyzed by others too. It's not that surprising that this doctor was there. He seeks out ufos/aliens, so when he heard about strange occurrences he went to see it himself. It's like saying it's strange a physicist always sees strange particles when he's around the LHC, or it's strange an archeologist always finds important artifacts, or it's strange a paleontologist always seems to find dinosaur bones. You get what I'm saying?

But the physicist sets up all his recording equipment so he can get the exact readings on the LHC, the archeologist and paleontologist can bring numerous other experts to the site to find bones and artifacts there too. If the sightings are predictable then they could easily bring skeptics, experts, people of importance, better recording equipment, anything they needed to bring to the scene. Why is it that even with a super predictable event, all you get are the same eyewitnesses with the same shoddy evidence that you always get?

 

[FlyBoy718]

Breh, you can literally see that the flares in the training footage and the flares in the "UFO video" are the exact same shyt. They're in the EXACT same configuration - one down lowest to the side, the next two much higher and closest together, the fourth highest and fairly close to the third, and the last lower but not as low as the first. Literally the EXACT same configuration, just mirrored.

Not to mention that all of it makes perfect sense for flares, but no sense at all for an alien craft. Why would it have five lights at all? Why would those lights be positioned so asymmetrically? Why would it hang in almost the same place for so long, but steadily falling? Why was it completely silent? Why was it hanging out in easy view of a major military exercise of no particular importance? Why hasn't a single one of the hundreds and hundreds of people involved in the actual exercise reported anything strange, just these random uninvolved people hanging off to the side? And why would the lights on the craft perfectly match the configuration of the flares dropped on that same night?

All of those questions have perfect, obvious answers if they are just falling flares. They have silly, strained explanations if its an alien craft. Occum's Razor is in effect.


In terms of these "50+ marine eyewitnesses", it's what the UFO people claim, but what is your documentation? Do you have the names of any of them, or just the claims that they were marines? How do you know they weren't just fukking around, or weren't newbies who had never seen dropping flares in a military exercise and didn't know how to interpret them any better than anyone else. Why do you assume their eyes can make out a craft that can't be seen at all on film, even when the photos are enhanced? How do you know their eyes weren't just playing tricks on them and imagining a solid structure around the symmetrical lights, as our eyes often do when they see patterns?


This is one of the easiest ones, breh. We don't need guesswork, we have clear video documentation of the exact incident that produced the sighting, whereas the "evidence" for being a UFO is flimsy as heck. And for anyone who is looking at it objectively, I hope it goes a long way towards demonstrating my repeat refrain that eyewitness account are unreliable as all get out.

You seem unable(or unwilling) to comprehend the fact two things can be true at once. I am not questioning whether a military exercise occurred that evening. In fact, I'm 100% positive the exercise did take place based on the available evidence. However, the military base in question is close to 1,000 square miles. I don't find it implausible to believe both events occurred on the same night in question. As far as the alignment of lights on the unidentified craft, I'm unfamiliar with the thought processes of aliens so I'm in no position to answer those questions. Neither are you. Regarding your assertion these are flares, it is a FACT that flares are incapable of remaining suspended in the one location for 10 minutes. This point is not up for debate. You can either accept that or choose to ignore it. In regards to the eyewitnesses, I readily admit I do not know them personally. Neither do you. A reputable news organization has verified they exist so I'll trust their vetting processes in this case. Furthermore, the enhanced photos referenced in the news segement does indeed show the outline of a physical craft. I know you take pride in being the resident Coli UAP debunker and that is your prerogative. But nothing you have presented as evidence fully refutes the validity of the UAP phenomenon.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Regarding your assertion these are flares, it is a FACT that flares are incapable of remaining suspended in the one location for 10 minutes. This point is not up for debate. You can either accept that or choose to ignore it.

Well, you're wrong. The flares are falling on parachutes and providing heat under the parachute on top of that, which means they function in some sense like a mini hot-air balloon and can stay in the air for extremely long times depending on conditions. This comes from the EPA's website on flares:

"Ground illumination flares, are designed to descend by parachute and provide up to 30 minutes of illumination of ground targets or activities. Typical flares are the LUU-1, LLU-5, and LLU-2B. A typical LLU-2B sectional is shown below."

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-10/documents/afd-051013-001.pdf

Now that your assumption of "fact" turned out to be wrong, can you change your conclusion?

In regards to the eyewitnesses, I readily admit I do not know them personally. Neither do you. A reputable news organization has verified they exist so I'll trust their vetting processes in this case.

The news organization talked to 50 people, or talked to one or two? They were experienced marines and ruled out flares for specific, demonstrable reasons, or they were newbies who knew little more about flares than you or I do? Everyone in the group thought it was a UFO, or just a few guys, or are they even goofing on the media? When you get the information 2nd or 3rd hand like this, the lack of such basic information devalues the observation.

We have the photos, and we don't have any indication there was real evidence besides those photos. And the photos look exactly like the flares.

Furthermore, the enhanced photos referenced in the news segement does indeed show the outline of a physical craft. I know you take pride in being the resident Coli UAP debunker and that is your prerogative. But nothing you have presented as evidence fully refutes the validity of the UAP phenomenon.

The "enhanced photos" do not show a craft, they just show an artifact of the illumination of the surrounding air that gets distorted by the enhancement process. You can see the same artifact in the flares video from the military - the sky directly around the flares is a different color than the sky further away, and with a low-quality picture artificially enhanced, it gives the false illusion of a shape.

Same number, same configuration, mostly the same spacing (just photos take from opposite sides and a slightly different angle), same flare trails above the lights, same illumination of the surrounding air...it's the same fukking thing. Just one of them is a low-quality photo and the other is a higher-quality night vision image.

It's not like I found a random flares photo to match. This is the EXACT flare drop that occurred that very night. If you can't accept that these two sets of lights in the exact sme place at the exact same time on the exact same day in the exact same configuration are the same thing, then how will you take any evidence objectively?

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

 

[FlyBoy718]

Well, you're wrong. The flares are falling on parachutes and providing heat under the parachute on top of that, which means they function in some sense like a mini hot-air balloon and can stay in the air for extremely long times depending on conditions. This comes from the EPA's website on flares:

"Ground illumination flares, are designed to descend by parachute and provide up to 30 minutes of illumination of ground targets or activities. Typical flares are the LUU-1, LLU-5, and LLU-2B. A typical LLU-2B sectional is shown below."

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-10/documents/afd-051013-001.pdf

Now that your assumption of "fact" turned out to be wrong, can you change your conclusion?






The news organization talked to 50 people, or talked to one or two? They were experienced marines and ruled out flares for specific, demonstrable reasons, or they were newbies who knew little more about flares than you or I do? Everyone in the group thought it was a UFO, or just a few guys, or are they even goofing on the media? When you get the information 2nd or 3rd hand like this, the lack of such basic information devalues the observation.

We have the photos, and we don't have any indication there was real evidence besides those photos. And the photos look exactly like the flares.





The "enhanced photos" do not show a craft, they just show an artifact of the illumination of the surrounding air that gets distorted by the enhancement process. You can see the same artifact in the flares video from the military - the sky directly around the flares is a different color than the sky further away, and with a low-quality picture artificially enhanced, it gives the false illusion of a shape.

Same number, same configuration, mostly the same spacing (just photos take from opposite sides and a slightly different angle), same flare trails above the lights, same illumination of the surrounding air...it's the same fukking thing. Just one of them is a low-quality photo and the other is a higher-quality night vision image.

It's not like I found a random flares photo to match. This is the EXACT flare drop that occurred that very night. If you can't accept that these two sets of lights in the exact sme place at the exact same time on the exact same day in the exact same configuration are the same thing, then how will you take any evidence objectively?

I'll repeat once again...it is FACT that military flares do not remain STATIONARY for 10 minutes. The link u provided does not change that fact. Flares attached to parachutes do not remain stationary. They descend to the ground as the link you provided explains. Nice try though.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'll repeat once again...it is FACT that military flares do not remain STATIONARY for 10 minutes. The link u provided does not change that fact. Flares attached to parachutes do not remain stationary. They descend to the ground as the link you provided explains. Nice try though.

Breh, think of how slow a flare would have to be descending in order to illuminate the ground for 30 minutes, and how little of that movement you'd be able to discern from miles away.

Whether the flares go up, down, or remain in place depends on the size of the parachute and weight of the flare. If the chute is too small, the flare descends. If the chute is too large, the flare rises (due to hot air effect). If the chute is the perfect size, the chute stays as close to still as possible, ideally up to 30 minutes. In that case, the speed of descent starts out fastest when the flares are first dropped, then slows and eventually stops as the flares lose weight while they burn.

Even if the flares are descending slower, you're barely going to be able to discern that movement from miles away. Think of how slow a commercial jet appears as it's flying through the air, and that's going 500 mph! Now imagine the typical skydiver falling at 15-20mph. That's a tiny fraction of the speed of the plane, you barely see the movement. Now imagine a parachute flare going 2mph, just 1/200th the speed of the jet or 1/10th the speed of the skydiver. At a distance, even if it is falling, it is going to give the appearance of hanging in the air even over 10 or more minutes. And due to hot air effect, they can stop descending completely and just hang there.

 

[Macallik86]

This convo reminds me of a Data Viz course that I took. The instructor always uses dope datasets, and one that he used was the public UFO/UAP self-reported dataset.

He found days with spikes, and cross-referenced the dates w/ SpaceX Starlink launches and realized they accounted for the most reported sightings over the last few years:

2019/11/11
2019/05/24
2019/05/23

So in these instances, there are probably hundreds (thousands?) of people that 'saw' a UFO, and +50 each day that filed a report online.

I'm a believer that there's extra-terrestrial life given the evidence shared by gov't so far, but I do generally take personal/social media sightings w/ a grain of salt. There are things that can't be explained for sure, but it's really not worth it trying to highlight individual instances as proof imo.

EDIT: To anyone interesed, you can see the video analyzing the data here. Click 'preview course' in the upper right hand corner, and then scroll down to the video called 'Finding Starlink Flybys in UFO dataset'

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

 

[FlyBoy718]

I'd say I'm looking forward to the summer report but I doubt anything groundbreaking will be released

 

[Orbital-Fetus]